Tech talk: The decline of 26" wheeled bikes

People are keeping their 26ers for too long, apparently. They are no longer selling very well, if at all, according to statements from various bike manufacturer representatives, including a recent one from Dave Turner.

Out at the local SoCal trails, I still see a healthy number of people on 26" bikes which would give the impression that 26" wheels are far from dead, as they outnumber 27.5 and 29er wheeled bikes seen, but signs have indicated that 26" wheels will no longer be the mainstream wheel size. Data from Leisure Trends Group shows that road and 29er sales make up over 50% of bike sales, and that in '12 1 out of 3 mtn bikes sold were 29ers, and by '13 over half of mtn bikes sold were 29ers. Many manufacturers have dropped much of their line of 26" wheeled models, save for the ones that have a good sales record and/or longer travel models. Dave Turner recently discontinued the 5 Spot, which was accompanied with sobs and sighs from Turner fans, but Dave responded that, despite the the reminiscing and the implied remorse involved in such a decision, only 1 person contacted him about purchasing one of the last 5 Spot frames that were on a closeout sale.

The 29er movement generated a huge influx of revenue. According to some manufacturers, that increase in sales saved the industry from heading into a decline. It's a trend, like other trends, that served as widespread exposure of something new that has enough merit to be worth a try. Almost all trends are contested in terms of it being needed; perhaps some can remember all the debates about 15QR, 142x12, air springs over coil, 9/10/11 speed, bottom bracket standards, disc brakes, hydraulic lines, and electronics (ex. GPS, Power meters). Whether it works well enough and offers enough value for the price and performance tends to determines if it sticks. The trends can get people to spend, to try out a new experience that they see others enjoying. Getting people to spend was what the industry needed to move forward.

Looking at things from an industry standpoint, rather than simply a bike mfg or component mfg perspective, the 29er trend got people to pull out their wallets and pull the trigger on expensive stuff, like carbon rims and carbon everything else. I believe that's because of how the 29ers feel lethargic/lazy. I can imagine that those high dollar item sales are just what the industry likes to see. People think that putting their bike on a diet remedies that, but it only helps so much, considering things like carbon rims aren't any lighter than alloy offerings (unless you go tubular, but they are stronger/stiffer and feel like you are running the equivalent of much a heavier alloy rim). Novices love how much easier it makes it to get into the sport on a 29er, and veterans love how much capable the 29er is with the same amount of suspension travel as a smaller wheeled bike, how they can run lighter tires and still get similar amount of traction, and how the bigger wheel covers up their mistakes/sloppy riding (less crashing), but how much capability a 29er offers to a rider is diminished drastically by how much skill that rider has.

As far as how fun bikes are, I wonder how many people look at geo figures like wheelbase and see that offerings like the Carbine 29 has a wheelbase of 46" in M, while a Glory has a wheelbase of 46" in their Small size. Looking at all the geo figures can give an idea of how a bike rides, but some tend to only focus on a few such as seat tube length and effective top tube for fit, and head angle, chainstay length, and bottom bracket height for ride handling. A wheelbase 46" long is made for high speed stability, plowing like a DH bike. On the other end of the spectrum, you have an Ibis Ripley with a wheelbase of 43.3", which trades high speed stability for more of an agile feel (43.3" is between the wheelbase of an Ibis Mojo SLR and HD or other 150/160 travel 26"). This is actually a decent wheelbase for a trail bike, but I think Ibis made the HA a bit steep that perhaps only a roadie/cyclocross rider could possibly love (I may be exaggerating), to get such a short wheelbase. The confidence may be there, but you can get confidence in a stouter frame as well, without the lethargic feeling and without the feeling of the challenge of trails being diminished since the bigger wheels make everything feel smaller. People like to go big, because when it feels big it offers a thrill that makes your adrenaline rush, and it's nice to have the suspension travel to soak up the bigger hits. Don't need to make run ins longer and faster, with bigger take-offs and landings to get the same thrills because you're riding bigger wheels. I think of those who are riding on smaller wheels, doing the same things I do on a 29er, as being more skilled; you definitely need the skill to do that kind of stuff as the risk of crashing is greater. A quick look at "rider down" threads and I get the impression that many 26" bike riders getting injured and a few are even switching to big wheeled bikes as a result. One could jump to the conclusion that 26" is crash prone, but I think that's an acceptable risk to many, for the enjoyment they get on them.

As a business, the amount of attention you can spread among various projects is finite, and diverting more of that attention to projects that stand a better chance of making more money sounds like a wise business decision, but not necessarily one that makes consumers happy. I'm not too against trends, as more revenue can lead to new models, which can mean new ideas being incorporated into new models (and people whining about new standards). It's a good chance for evolution to make bikes more capable, but some of those improvements are due to demands of 29er design and when they "trickled down" to 26", they didn't make enough of an impact to attract sales. Sometimes it's all business, and those businesses aren't making decisions for the consumer's best interests. For successful brands with little competition, it's sad to see how many patents they are sitting on, plotting things out on a timelime for slow/steady release, in order to earn margins from current products to make tooling costs worth it. Why offer entry level 1x11 when people are buying up $300+ cassettes about as fast as they can manufacture them? That's apparently the reason why SRAM is not trickling down (http://www.bikeradar.com/us/mtb/gear/ar ... ton-36019/). Shimano's ready for an electronic revolution, with patents on electronic fork valving, electronic screw-based-operation dropper post, 14 speed cassette, and more. Bad for consumers that want this stuff as soon as possible, but good for those that want their stuff to not feel obsolete, as no one enjoys the feeling they get when they're told their product is no longer any good. I constantly see people deceiving themselves, fooling themselves to believe older tech is no worse, or even better, such as vinyl records sound better than CDs. What's worse is when they actually put money to back up such beliefs, despite being ignorant of the facts.

I think it'll be pretty sad to see 26" gone for good. I'm not too worried about that though, as the niche boutique brands will keep it alive. I think all these choices are actually making people more hesitant to buy, as people feel inclined to do some research (sometimes endless research) before a purchase. That could be one reason why some choices, like 26" models, are being phased out. Despite all that, I am putting together a 26" AM bike right now, coming from a 29er XC HT and 29er trail FS bike, and treating it as a bike that gives me some more adrenaline-filled thrills that I've been missing out on, or shying away from. Will the 29er trend begin to show a long term decline, followed by growth of the 27.5? Only time will tell, but I believe 29ers certainly have a place for novices, XC riders, and short travel trail bikes, assuming you're tall enough to fit on one comfortably, and 27.5" will grow by taking up the market share that the 26" and 29" market lost. It might be a plus for local bike shops and "premium" (real) bikes, as it differentiates from 26" derpartment store bikes. Don't rush to buy a "piece of history", as I highly doubt 26" bikes are going extinct so suddenly. Enjoy what you got, and remember to have fun and why you got into mountain biking in the first place and figure out what demands you have, before going out to buy something based on what's trendy/popular.

P.S. I'm planning on writing more articles like this, if the response is good. Looking for someone to provide illustrations, graphics, and images to accompany these and provide more effect. Looking for feedback too. Is this too lengthy to digest in a sitting, or too dull in style? Perhaps an editor would like to suggest some fixes?

 

Thanks for the insight Varaxis!
imtbtrails is currently building the online magazine that will have a home for this very subject of technical nature. This will fit in perfect there. Look forward to that being available in the very near future!

Thank you for the excellent contribution my friend!

~imtbtrails

 

so, simply stated, Mikie's bike is now "ANTIQUATED" due to market research and crash analysis....... :lol:

 

I have a medium frame 26" bike that I ride when I know I am doing something technical, and my regular large frame 29" that I ride for the longer cross-country / trail rides. You get used to riding the 29" and the 26" feels like a little pony on the technical downhills - so much more maneuverable.

 

Wow! Holy thread resurrection! Three years to the day!

 

26ers are coming back - book it!

 

There is still a time and place for 26 inch bike.

 

Why do @Danmtchl and @UPSed now have virtually the same Avatar?

 

Busted! I'll change it when I get up.

 

PHEW!!! Thanks. I can now go about my day without that anxiety. In fact, an X-Ray of my skull would have shown the two of your avatars superimposed on one another with question marks filling the void.

 

Mine was better as it was a DH bike. I believe his is a DJ.

 

This nutty web site keeps "suggesting" thread content Sometimes I click and respond before I look at the dates

 

26ers, 100mm front and 142mm rear spacing are dead

 

Uh oh, my bike has two of the three of those... I better go shoot it.

 

I put a 27.5" up forward on my 26" bike and I am liking the handling. The front wheel seems to come up a little easier over obstacles. I assume that is because I am already riding with my weight a little farther back on the bike.

 

This was a good read! I always liked the idea of having different sized wheels for different frames. XS and S are 26", S and M are 27.5", M, L, and XL in 29". You can design each frame specifically for that tire size, and not have compromises like toe clip overlap or really high stack on small frames. But supply chain could be a huge hassle. And 26" is gone, so really not an issue.

 

My children ride Small-sized Women's bikes with 27.5 wheels and they fly, good riddance to those baby-sized 26'ers.

 

27.5 is hard to beat!

 

29er beats a 27.5er.... It's bigger and as Americans, we all know bigger is better!

 

But does it have electrolytes in it?

 

Then I must be a god!

 

Sheeet! It's filled with the Tailwind!

 

Mine too...Except it still features a 9x135 rear axle.

 

D^3 back among us!